Standard for union initialization?

[Doug Gwyn <gwyn>]

> why not use a more general scheme like
> 
> 	union {
> 	    <type1> foo;
> 	    <type2> bar;
> 	    <type3> mumble;
> 	} baz.mumble = <type3 initializer>;

But "baz.mumble" is not what you want the union to be called.
This addition would certainly make for a messier language
syntax definition.